Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about the public bio nature and the inclusion of recent articles, but it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the key return fields without any filler. Every clause earns its place by conveying what the tool provides.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a low-complexity read-only tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description still omits critical invocation guidance: how to specify the author via url or slug, and when to use this tool. These gaps make it incomplete for correct agent selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters (url and slug), and the description does not mention either parameter. It does not explain which parameter to use, whether they are alternatives or complements, or how to obtain valid values, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource (a CNBC author's public bio page) and enumerates the key fields returned (name, job title, biography, social links, recent articles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cnbc_article and cnbc_headlines, though it does not explicitly use a retrieval verb such as 'get' or 'fetch'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to choose cnbc_author over cnbc_article, or how to find the required author identifier). The description only states what the tool returns, leaving usage context entirely implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.